Evolutionarily, humans have benefitted from being a selfish species. We look out for our own best interests for the sake of survival and are inclined to focus on meeting our needs so we may live the most comfortable lives possible. However, Kim Stanley Robinson’s propositions to solve climate change in The Ministry for the Future assume that human beings will be altruistic and make sacrifices to their lifestyles to protect future generations and populations around the world in ways they have not yet proven willing to do.
Throughout the novel, Robinson argues that there are enough resources to go around so that humans have their basic needs met in ways they currently aren’t because of extreme wealth disparity. He mentions that there is “scientifically supported evidence to show that if the Earth’s resources were divided up equally… everyone would be fine” (Robinson 57). For example, chapter seventy-six compares the pay differential between corporations and the United States Navy. It tells us that C-suite employees make, on average, five hundred times what their employees make, while the highest-ranked Naval admirals make eight times the amount that entry-level officers do. He poses the question “what if the world ran more like the US Navy?” (Robinson 383). In this example, highly paid executives would be forced to take a significant pay cut and the ultra-rich would have to be willing to make that sacrifice for the greater good of humanity. Given that there has been no indication that CEOs are willing to take a pay cut and that the rich continue to get richer, this assumption of altruism is difficult to imagine. Considering that climate change is propelling the world into a mass extinction event, this should be an easy trade-off, yet very few people seem to do it. The phenomenon of this can be best explained by the nihilistic French saying “après moi, le déluge” (Robinson 57), which translates to after me, the flood. This is a recurring notion in the novel where those in power turn a blind eye to the horrifying tragedy climate change has become, simply because it doesn’t affect them at that moment. This again illustrates the fact that altruism is a concept that is difficult for many people to practice, even when their lives literally depend on it.
Not just the top one percent need to make changes to make a dent in climate change and, thus, Robinson argues for lifestyle shifts as simple as vegetarianism for the everyday person, or taking up less land to make room for plants and animals. Though yet again, this would mean sacrificing an extra dollar to buy a beyond burger patty, sacrificing the delicious taste of a filet mignon in favor of a plant-based option, or living in a house that comfortably fits your family rather than a small town. While this sacrifice is small compared to the immense benefit of saving the population, most people have shown an unwillingness to conform. Because of the disastrous implications climate change could have on our society, Robinson assumes that any person would make the changes necessary to help out mankind. People nevertheless prove, time and time again, that we are not selfless. Why would someone change their way of living or give up their possessions and time if the issue won’t affect them until later on? While Robinson makes a powerful argument for his life-saving propositions, magnanimity and social consciousness are not at the forefront of our cultures. Après moi, le déluge.
Although you bring up a good point about the difficulty of relying on altruism to combat climate change, I think that a degree of selfishness is necessary in order to bring about the personal alarm that those in power would require to work towards a solution. Although humans, especially those in power, are not naturally altruistic, I think Robinson largely fails to consider how a human's intense instinct for self preservation could aid in the fight against climate change.
ReplyDeleteThe Ministry for the Future does take place over the course of decades and without true progress being guaranteed within ones lifetime. This may be why lack of altruism is more significantly affecting the process of reversing climate change; those who fight climate change may not even benefit from their hard work. This perspective is acknowledged as Robinson writes, "But over the long haul, in some rough sense, that’s what we have to try for. That’s what our ministry is about. We’re trying to set things up so that in the future, over the long haul, something like justice will get created. Some long-term ledger of more good than bad. Bending the arc and all that. No matter what happened before, that’s what we can do now" (Robinson). Overall, I think Robinson acknowledges altruism as being necessary in the long-term, but difficult to come by, despite not acknowledging the short term importance of self-preservation.